employer says im out of favour

krd

jhegarty wrote: »

Source ?

I'm not going to go digging right now. But I believe someone posted the figures to this forum a few months ago.

Why don't you go find it. Since you're so convinced we live in a bleeding heart socialist republic - you can post the figures and prove me wrong.

And prove E&Y wrong at the same time.

tricky D

How about the 2 cases in my links? Facts not good enough to bother reading? Nevermind the fact that it's the EAT not the Labour Court which matters here.

Eoin

krd wrote:

Yes.

Nearly twice as much.

You didn't swallow the IBEC & SFA koolaid, that Ireland was socialist country, hamstrung by regulations - did you?
...
There's a lot of mythology in regard to the US. Only a handful of states are fire at will

Maybe those handful of States happen to be in the same locations where my company also has offices, but there (and also in Canada where we have an office too), they can and do get rid of people a LOT quicker than they can over here.

That's not based on "mythology", but on the experience of colleagues of mine across N.A. who I work(ed) with closely.

Again, I'm talking specifically about the IT industry. Retail or other industries might be different, but my experience has been that across all the companies that I've worked for, the company really needs to be able to back themselves up if they let someone go for under-performing.

Anyway, I'm still wondering what "out of favour" actually means - it's not an employment specific term that I've heard of.

drkpower wrote: »

Tbh, if you worked for me, I'd probably try and fire you too.

krd wrote: »

And if you worked for me - I would definitely fire you........my friend.

Don't get personal please.

krd

oops

krd

Eoin wrote: »

Maybe those handful of States happen to be in the same locations where my company also has offices, but there (and also in Canada where we have an office too), they can and do get rid of people a LOT quicker than they can over here.

From what I have witnessed. People can be gotten rid of very quickly here. There are reasons Ernest & Young scored Ireland 6.2 for labour flexibility and the US only got 3.3 - No one got a 10. 10 would be absolute fire at will for whatever reason and no protections against any form of discrimination.

That's not based on "mythology", but on the experience of colleagues of mine across N.A. who I work(ed) with closely.

There's a "rugged individualist" myth many Americans like to believe. That the country is fire at will and that there is no social welfare. It varies across states. But some states are very highly unionised. Have lots of labour protection in law. Massachusetts has pay linked social welfare that's more generous than any European country. The states with least social welfare and lowest labour protection are also the poorest states.

Again, I'm talking specifically about the IT industry. Retail or other industries might be different, but my experience has been that across all the companies that I've worked for, the company really needs to be able to back themselves up if they let someone go for under-performing.

That's your experience. I know companies in Ireland who don't - they just churn the staff in out of the door.

There's lots of peculiarities. Like one time, a manager of mine, was sacked (he basically destroyed the company), he wasn't hunted out the door. He was given an office with a phone, and had his computer taken off him. They gave him 4 months to find himself another job.

Anyway, I'm still wondering what "out of favour" actually means - it's not an employment specific term that I've heard of.

I'm wondering if you're saying that with your eyelids peeled back and a false look of innocence on your face. We do everything by the book here!!!!

I'm sure you've heard of favourtism. You know someone getting a promotion not based on their abilities but because they're liked by someone.

There's also the opposite. People who have nothing wrong with their work or with their abilities, getting passed over for promotion or getting sacked because they've fallen foul of someone.

Talk to people who work in HR, and they'll tell you that someones "personality" is far more important than their abilities. Succeed in the workplace is more about "soft skills", than "hard skills"

I've worked in IT too. And I would say there is absolutely no difference. You can have a team of highly skilled and educated engineers being managed by a clueless school drop out someone took a shine to. In fact it's my experience you'll some of the dumbest people you'll find anywhere working in management in IT.

The more I think about it, the more it's like working with nutty dumb children.

Falling "out of favour" usually means just that. Someone with a little power has taken a dislike to you.

And it can be over absolutely nothing. You come in to work one day - you glance at someone, and they interpret it as a slight. You intimidate someone in some way. You don't show the level of deference someone expects. You have something a little different in your lifestyle. You're not bacon and cabbage enough.

The one thing I hate the most about many people who become managers. They believe it gives them magical powers. They believe they can see inside peoples minds. They believe all their thoughts are magically correct. They believe it makes them magically cleverer than the people who are working beneath them. I really hate the stupid ones, who manage by "gut" feelings.

tricky D

You keep banging on about the E&Y figure on labour flexibility as if it's solely about the ability to fire people. It's not. It is about working time, functional, financial (wage) and labour intake flexibility. Hiring and firing only applies partially in the case of labour intake.

Eoin

krd wrote:

I'm wondering if you're saying that with your eyelids peeled back and a false look of innocence on your face

I'm well aware of what the expression means in general terms; you can save the sarcasm. It's pretty self explanatory. I just find it very odd that the OP's employer has specifically used this term to their face, while not sacking or laying the OP off.

Until the OP gets back (and I don't blame him or her if they don't at this stage), this is just going to go around in the same circle.

krd

tricky D wrote: »

How about the 2 cases in my links? Facts not good enough to bother reading? Nevermind the fact that it's the EAT not the Labour Court which matters here.

I'm surprised at the case of Christopher Varian getting 34k, after being dismissed for not hitting his sales targets. As this is a common reason for dismissing sales staff. His employers didn't follow their own internal grievance procedure. His target was stipulated in his contract and he had failed to reach his targets.

Typically to fire a sales person for poor performance. A verbal warning, then if their sales performance doesn't improve, a written warning. If they are still not hitting their targets, a dissmisal. There isn't really anything easier to measure as performance indicators than sales.
I'm surprised the tribunal ruled in Varian's favour.

On contracts of employment I've typically had, the grievance procedure is outlined - but there is usually a disclaimer at the end saying the employer can chose to disregard the grievance procedure at their discretion. I've interpreted this as meaning the grievance procedure wasn't worth tuppence to me.

Though - I surprised to see this

In two recent cases, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has handed down substantial awards - €127,350 and €87,000. The tribunal is penalising employers who fail to adhere to 'fair procedures', even when there is a genuine redundancy situation.



I'm trying to find the average EAT payout. The two cases you've given - the payouts seem high.

This from Irish chamber of commerce also shows high payouts http://www.chambers.ie/preview.php?id=889

I have seen awards that have been very low. I'm just having trouble finding them this minute. I can find the averages for the UK the Irish ones are giving me trouble, I'm sure I've seen them before and they were quite low.

The high payments look extraordinarily high.

krd

Eoin wrote: »

I'm well aware of what the expression means in general terms; you can save the sarcasm. It's pretty self explanatory. I just find it very odd that the OP's employer has specifically used this term to their face, while not sacking or laying the OP off.
.

Well. "Odd" isn't unusual. And it might not be as it seems. Whoever told them they're "out of favour" may be trying to help them. Like a friendly "watch your back".

A few years ago, I was in a job, where my manager wanted to promote me (in fact I had been doing the job for months). There was something weird going on. Previously I had applied for an internal position, and I didn't even get a formal rejection and feedback, like everyone else did. I asked, and then was told they had no record of my application. So, this time around, my manager goes and recommends my for the new position. He then comes back to me and all he says and won't say anymore is "you have very powerful enemies". I know who that enemy is now. A senior manager who didn't like me and did not want to see me promoted. Simple as that. There's more weirdness to it. Really down to the wonky way their head worked.

Workplace "oddness" isn't uncommon. I think the weirdest people are the ♫ do you want your auld lobby washed down sunshine ♫ brigade.

krd

tricky D wrote: »

You keep banging on about the E&Y figure on labour flexibility as if it's solely about the ability to fire people. It's not. It is about working time, functional, financial (wage) and labour intake flexibility.

That kind of true. But your ability to fire people can control the other factors. Like "take a paycut - or lose your job", "work all weekend for free or lose your job". I have a friend and his employer is giving a huge chunk of work to do from home every weekend - the employer thinks the weekend is his employees work from home time. He's not getting paid extra for the weekend work - and it is a real strain on him. But if he says no, wave bye bye to the job.

Hiring and firing only applies partially in the case of labour intake.

That is not true. Firing can also apply to the ability to take advantage of changes in the labour market.

In Tesco's annual report they like to boast that the vast majority of their workforce are part time. Part time workers under English law have nowhere near the protections full time workers have.

Labour flexibility purely means how high the deck is stacked in the employers favour.

If a country had laws tightly curtailing the power of unions or even banning them, that would score a few points higher on the E&Y scale.

The perfect 10, would be where the employees have no rights - not even the right to health and safety or life. And the employer has no obligations to their employees, no obligation to honour contracts, no obligation to honour any codes of conduct.